DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
MA/100/2023
C.C. No. 367/2022
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………..President.
:- Smt. Manisha Shaw……………Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order No.06
Dated. 06.07.2023
The application under Section 38 (8) /2019 to be considered has registered as M.A. being No. 100/2023. Both the parties are present. The complainant filed the show cause as per direction of this commission. Perused the show cause and it is found that solely satisfactory. Thus the same is accepted. The case is taken up for hearing of the petition under Section 38 (8) of the C.P. Act, 2019 filed by the complainant.
Perused the petition under Section 38(8) of the C.P. Act, 2019 and the written objection thereof as filed by the parties to this case.
From the content of the petition 38(8) of 2019 the complainant take loan of Rs.15,93,000/- for purchasing embroidery machine from the O.P- company.
It is alleged by the complainant/petitioner the said machine was found defective he could not be able to repay the EMI of the aforesaid machine the complainant /petitioner repeatedly the O.P. No.2 bank so that due to non- payment of the EMI no legal account could not be taken against him by the O.P.. No.2- bank. Hence the instant application is filed by the complainant/petitioner with a prayer to restrain to O.P- bank from initiating any sort of legal action against the complainant in order to recover that dues.
The O.P. No.2 bank has contested under Section 38 (8) denying all the allegations.
It is the case of the O.P. No.2 bank that on the prayer of the complainant/petitioner the bank sanctioned amounting to Rs.2,93,000/- and Rs.51,000/- for purchasing embroidery on garments dated 29.07.2021.
The O.P. No.2 i.e. State Bank of India, SMECC,Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700054 and disbursed the same through their branch on 11.10.2021.The complainant / petitioner executed all the required documents at the time of taking loan.
O.P. No.2- bank alleged that even lapse of the stipulated period the petitioner/ complainant did not fail to pay the EMI and on repeated time representative of the bank visited the complainant’s business place and requested him to repay the loan. But the complainant ignored the same so they sent a demand notice. The complainant received the same and deliberately failed the loan amount as a result bank institute the money suit against the complainant /petitioner.
As per the case of the O.P. No.2 the prayer of the complainant has no basis at all and is liable to be rejected with cost.
On a close scrutiny of the materials on record and also considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss of injury it is observed that the no prayer case as their in favour of the complainant/petitioner cannot indulge to O.P to undo his duty in the instant case. The complainant took the loan from the O.P. No.2- bank and he failed to repay the same. He deliberately ignored his duty to repay the loan and try to get the shield of this commission. So that no action would be taken to O.P. Bank by any means.
The Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislature and it the contents to legislature protect the interest of the consumer but it cannot indulge any consumer to do any legal act which is his responsibility. In the instant case it is found that the complainant took loan from purchasing embroidery machine and it is obligation to repay the EMI rather he tried to shield but the EMI shall not be paid by him and no action can be taken by the O.P. NO.2-Bank. This cannot be indulged by this commission.
Hence in view of the discussion made above this commission is view that the complainant / petitioner failed to establish any primafacie to allow the prayer under Section 38(8) 2019 in his favour. Thus, M.A. being No. 100/2023 is considered and rejected.
Fixing for filing questionnaire by the opposite parties. BNA is thus disposed of.
Member Member President
